1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to transport of Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) packets by IPv6 nodes via an IPv4 network having a Network Address Translator (NAT) or a Port Address Translator (PAT).
2. Description of the Related Art
Proposals are underway by the Next Generation Transition (NGTRANS) Working Group of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) to enable network nodes to transmit IP packets, generated according to IPv6 protocol as specified by the Request for Comments (RFC) 2460, across an IPv4 network. In particular, RFC 3056 proposes an interim solution (referred to herein as “the 6 to 4 proposal”) of sending IPv6 packets as payload for IPv4 packets, where an interim unique IPv6 address prefix is assigned to any node that has at least one globally unique IPv4 address. These RFCs are available at the IETF website on the World Wide Web at http://www.ietf.org The 6 to 4 proposal specifies that an IPv6 node has an IPv6 address that contains an assigned IPv4 address, resulting in an automatic mapping between the IPv6 and IPv4 addresses. Hence, the IPv6 node can easily encapsulate the IPv6 packet with an IPv4 header based on extracting the assigned IPv4 address from within its IPv6 address.
Concerns arise in the event that an IPv6 node is coupled to a private IPv4 network having a Network Address Translator (NAT). NATs perform a Layer-3 translation of IP-Addresses, so that public Internet addresses map to private IP addresses, as described in detail by the Request for Comments 1918 (RFC 1918). This mapping has allowed enterprises to map a large number of private addresses to a limited number of public addresses, thus limiting the number of public addresses required by Internet users.
As described in RFC 3056, however, if an IPv6 node is coupled to an IPv4 network having a NAT, then the NAT box “must also contain a fully functional IPv6 router including the 6 to 4 mechanism” in order for the 6 to 4 proposal to still be operable in the IPv4 network having the NAT. However, the modification of existing NATs to include IPv6 routers to include the 6 to 4 mechanism may not be a practical solution.
Further, the IPv4 addresses of the 6 to 4 protocol are assumed to be global public addresses. Hence, if an IPv6 node (i.e., a correspondent node) wants to communicate with a roaming mobile IPv6 node, the 6 to 4 address of the roaming mobile IPv6 node must be a global public address, not a private address.
One proposal for traversing a NAT by an IPv6 node using automatic tunneling is described in an IETF Draft by Huitema, entitled “Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through NATs”, Sep. 17, 2002, available on the World Wide Web at the address: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ngtrans-shipworm-08.txt.
Huitema suggests that IPv6 nodes located behind NATs can access “Teredo servers” and “Teredo relays” to learn their “global address” and to obtain connectivity, where clients, servers, and relays can be organized in “Teredo networks”. Huitema relies on a complex client server-based interaction between the client (i.e., the IPv6 node) behind the NAT in the private IPv4 address realm, and the Teredo server and Teredo relay on the opposite side of the NAT in the public IPv4 address realm. Hence, the communications between the IPv6 node on the private side of the NAT, and the Teredo server and the Teredo relay on the public side of the NAT, (via the NAT), require that the IPv6 node has a specified path to both the Teredo server and the Teredo relay gateway on the public side; hence, the IPv6 node needs to use the same IPv4 identifier (e.g., UDP port IP address that is being translated by the NAT).
This same IPv4 identifier for communications with the Teredo server and Teredo relay, however, is impossible with symmetric NATs because the Teredo server and Teredo relay each have a distinct corresponding IPv4 public address. In particular, symmetric NATs index their address translation tables not only by private IP address/private UDP port/public IP address/public UDP port of the packet output by a private IPv4 node, but also by the destination IP address and destination port specified by the packet anddestined for the public IPv4 network. Hence, since the Teredo server and Teredo relay have distinct IP addresses, the symmetric NAT will not map the packets to the same private IP address/private UDP port used by the private IPv4 node. Hence, the Huitema solution cannot traverse a symmetric NAT.